Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

Governors races (and committees) take center stage in 2010

The Republican Governors Association and Democratic Governors Association -- long regarded as the forgotten little brother (or sister) of the national party committee family -- have emerged as two financial titans ready to exert significant influence on races this fall.

At the end of March, the RGA had $31 million in its campaign account -- just five million dollars less than the Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee had combined at that time.

The DGA's $22 million cash on hand total at the end of March ranked them behind only the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's $26 million warchest and marked an eleven-fold(!) improvement over where the gubernatorial committee stood at this same time in the 2006 cycle.

There are three main reasons for the fundraising success enjoyed by the RGA and DGA.

First, the two committees are not bound by federal donation restrictions, meaning they can accept unlimited donations.

Second, there are a whopping 37 states up this fall and, with reapportionment and redistricting set for 2011, there is a heightened sense in Washington of the importance of governors races.

What are the races where both committees plan to spend their tens of millions in campaign cash? The top 15 contests -- ranked in order of their likelihood to switch parties -- are below.

Have thoughts of your own? The comments section is open for business.

To. The. Line!

Dropping off the Line: OhioComing onto the Line: Wisconsin

15. Wisconsin (Democratic-controlled): This race would be higher on the Line were it not for the pending Republican primary between Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and former Rep. Mark Neumann. State and national Republicans want -- and expect -- Walker to win and his ads to date have been some of our favorites this cycle. But, Neumann has personal money and won't roll over for Walker. Waiting in the general election is Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D). (Previous ranking: N/A)

14. California (Republican-controlled): Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman (R) has effectively used to her vast personal wealth to crush the primary candidacy of state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner (R). Democrats, wary of watching Whitman do the same to state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) this fall, are forming a series of outside groups aimed at countering Whitman's wealth. Polling suggests the race is going to be close. (Previous ranking: 15)

13. Arizona (R): Appointed Gov. Jan Brewer (R) faces a no-win situation -- politically speaking -- as she weighs whether or not to veto a strict illegal immigration bill that has drawn considerable national attention. Veto the bill and Brewer likely angers the conservative base just months before a serious primary fight. Sign it and she could well foreclose any chance of winning the general election as Hispanic voters are likely to turn out in droves to cast a vote against her. Not good. (Previous ranking: 13)

12. Minnesota (R): The governor's race began in earnest earlier this week when former state House Minority Leader Matt Entenza (D) began running ads touting the need for drastic change in the state. The Democratic primary will likely shake out between the personal wealth of Entenza and former Sen. Mark Dayton and the organizational power of state House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher and Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak. State Reps. Marty Seifert and Tom Emmer are the frontrunners for the GOP nod. (Previous ranking: 12)

11. Connecticut (R): Most of the attention in the runup to the Nutmeg State's Aug. 10 primary day will be focused on the Democratic side where 2006 Senate Ned Lamont, who became a national political sensation when he ousted Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary four years ago, is facing off against former Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy. Former Ambassador Tom Foley looks like the Republican nominee. (Previous ranking: 11)

10. Vermont (R): Republicans continue to insist that Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie (R) is not only ahead of the Democratic field currently but has a real chance to win in the fall despite the clear Democratic tilt of the state. Democrats have a talented but crowded field and with a very late primary -- Sept. 14 -- and a national wind blowing in their faces anything is possible. (Previous ranking: 9)

9. Pennsylvania (D): The Democratic gubernatorial primary to replace term limited Gov. Ed Rendell (D) has been entirely overshadowed by the fight between Sen. Arlen Specter and Rep. Joe Sestak as well as the special election to replace the late Rep. John Murtha in the 12th district. Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato has, by far, the most money and should be the nominee but will start the general election as a decided underdog against state Attorney General Tom Corbett (R). (Previous ranking: 10)

8. Hawaii (R): Don't be fooled by the closeness of the special election in Hawaii's 1st district. The Aloha State is still comfortably Democratic territory barring the sort of ballot quirk -- all candidates run together regardless of party affiliation -- that is afflicting the party in the race to replace former Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D). Abercrombie and Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann are headed toward a contentious primary fight while Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona has the Republican race to himself. (Previous ranking: 7)

7. Michigan (D): The state of the Wolverine State's economy -- 14.9 percent unemployment -- makes this a near-impossible hold for Democrats in the fall. The most intriguing storyline in the race is the rise of free-spending businessman Rick Snyder (R) who has gone from nowhere to relevance in a few short months. (Previous ranking: 6)

6. Iowa (D): Just when it appeared as though things couldn't go any more wrong for Gov. Chet Culver, they did. The resignation of Culver's campaign manager last week was the latest in a slew of staff departures for the governor's increasingly moribund re-election effort. National Democrats express exasperation with Culver's struggles and polling suggests that former Gov. Terry Branstad (R) is a heavy favorite to reclaim the office this fall. (Previous ranking: 8)

5. Oklahoma (D): Rep. Mary Fallin (R) formally entered the race to replace term limited Gov. Brad Henry (D) late last month, a contest where she is considered a strong favorite. Democrats are hosting a competitive July 27 primary between state Attorney General Drew Edmondson and Lt. Gov. Jari Askins but the winner will struggle to overcome the strongly Republican nature of the Sooner State. (Previous ranking: 5)

4. Tennessee (D): The drama in the Volunteer State will be in the Aug. 5 Republican primary -- a three-way battle between Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam, Rep. Zach Wamp and Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsay. Haslam, who has massive personal wealth, is the favorite although all three candidates are now on television. (Previous ranking: 4)

3. Rhode Island (R): Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who is running as an independent, is the frontrunner to replace term limited Gov. Don Carcieri (R). State Attorney General Patrick Lynch and state Treasurer Frank Caprio are locked in a competitive fight for the Democratic nod and now, after searching for quality candidates unsuccessfully for months, Republicans now look like they will have a primary as well.

2. Kansas (D): There are only so many ways to write that Sen. Sam Brownback (R) is going to be elected governor. This is one of them. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. Wyoming (D): Democrats are beginning to acknowledge the obvious: they aren't likely to field a serious candidate in the race to replace Gov. Dave Freudenthal (D). Four Republicans -- including state House Speaker Colin Simpson and state Auditor Rita Meyer -- will face off in an Aug. 17 primary. (Previous ranking: 1)

I think it's ready for you to start referring to "DAN" Malloy, as does everyone in CT, as opposed to Dannel Malloy, which is only the name on his birth certificate. You're clearly comfortable with nicknames "Don" "Ron" "Tom" so why insist on spelling out Malloy's name?

The Inquirer has an article today about Pennsylavinia party registrations and how they may effect the May primaries and the November general elections. Current Democratic registration is 4.3 million; current Republican registration is 3.1 million. An awful lot of Democrats would have to stay home for Corbett to be elected. I'm betting on Onorato to win by appealing to both his weatern base and to the committed Democrats in South Eastern PA.

Why no mention of Georgia? Two leading Republican contenders (sitting Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine and recently-resigned Nathan Deal) have been under investigation for ethical violations. On the Democratic side, the frontrunner is former governor Roy Barnes (who has polled well) and a leading challenger is current Attorney General Thurbert Baker, who recently got in the national spotlight for refusing to file suit against the federal government over health care reform and who could force a large turnout of African American voters similar to the turnout forced by Obama in 2008 that kept Georgia a lot closer than most thought it would be. In a nutshell, Georgia is definitely a race to watch.

cef I will, but I have to find it first, I have a new machine here and more important...my kids want to play ball, before dinner, its only 1628 out here on the west side so I will get back to you. I am interested in this and, thank you.

nope Brigade I consider you one of the reasonable voices here. Keeping AN OPEN MIND is something we should all consider and that
is precisely why I started by saying hypothetically lets presume that conservatives are right about Global Warming, but...

My family spends a lot of time in Sedona and love it there and not really concerned about our being racially profiled but I will be waiting for the first R in Az to get randomly stopped to see their reaction. I seriously don t think the Az legislation will pass constitutional test. That is all I have here, goodnight..

Not sure if this post was meant for me, but I'll respond---even though you never did tell me if you found my suggestions for avoiding deportation helpful.

Why does saying that I still have an open mind bring the charge of "Global Warming Denier?" Life is full of "what if"s. You pay your money and you take your chances. People are always calling me a Republican, too. I'm learning to take it in stride.

"To deniers if we accept your denial and agree that there is only a 1% chance of Global Warming, then we do nothing?"

I'm not really a denier, but let me put your mind at ease. There's graft to be had, so there is an absolute 100% guarantee that we will do SOMETHING.

"How about nuclear proliferation, cyber attacks or intl wars against Russia or China."

This old boy's not too concerned about possible war with Russia or China. That was years ago. Remember duck-and-cover and fallout shelters in basements? People in those days believed in preparing for the worst. Not like now.

"...then by your logic we should shut down our military and abandon efforts to halt the spread of nuclear proliferation..."

I hope that's not where my logic leads, but I was beginning to worry about Obama. Fill me in: what's his plan for preventing Iran from developing nukes? Uncle Joe Biden told Israel there was ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE Iran will be allowed to develop Nukes. Bold talk, wouldn't you say? Let's see how that works out before we decide if we're going to follow his lead on climate change.

"Curious why Global Warming is the topic de jour rather than the implosion of Rs with independents and hispanic voters..."

Agreed. But I think if you check back a ways you'll find that it was one of the more liberal posters who introduced this topic into the discussion.

I see how you could miss that. DDAWD, Drindl, and some of the others seem more comfortable opining when there's no one around to challenge them. Of course, unlike you and I, they all have a life. At least until tomorrow morning, when some of the more productive members of society head to work. Then, as 37th said, they'll come crawling out.

notice your selective use of the word "IF" warming is caused by natural forces..

Moderates do not think there is a 1% chance of global warming, they are just using logic in saying "IF" THERE IS ONLY a 1% then the conservatives have no answer, none other than to say cest la vie.

Again to the Global Warming deniers I strongly urge them to visit the Columbian Icefields a couple hours drive from Calgary and near Lake Louise and Banff. Its one of the most beautiful places on the face of the earth but truly tragic to see the icefields which are close to extinction since 37th knows 100% that there is no such thing as Global Warming. Tell that story to the generation of Candadians who have spent their entire lives around the icefields.

Its great that conservatives have conveniently found religion on the deficit this year. Their silence was deafening for 8 years, but no one ever accused them of consistency.

I urge the Golbal Warming Deniers here to join our Texas state bd of education who still claim that there is still no scientific proof of evolution and don't want evolution taught to our children. Some conservatives still wonder why the earth is flat as well and ask why scientist have yet to prove otherwise..

just as I suspected you are a PHD Climate Scientist since you have declared that you know with a "100% guarantee" that manmade Global Warming does not exist. You and jake , 2 peas in a pod with your 100% assurances.

Actually I think that it is a very reasonable position to take to agree with the deniers and say that presuming you are right, even against scientific evidence otherwise that you disagree with, that you refuse to consider that there is even a 1% chance that you and your crowd are wrong. Extremists take the absolute position on every political issue, even those they know nothing about, not rational moderates. That is the extremist position to take to say there is 0% chance that your crowd is wrong about manmade Global Warming. The rest of my post asked deniers to please find the time to visit the Columbia Icefields and tell us that if there is also a very small chance of intl nuclear war or cyber attacks why we don t follow the deniers' logic forward to its natural conclusion and simply say that since the odds are also very small of nuclear war with Russia why we don t shut down the Defense expenditures and similar efforts to curb nuclear proliferation.
And incidentally, it is Lyndsey Graham that is working on reducing carbon emissions, you know that socialist R US Senator from S. Carolina.

I got the analytical bug and ran a spread sheet of governors races. 23 open races split pretty evenly between R's and D's, 37 overall races split the same, mostly. One more R Open but one more D overall. Curiously there isn't a lot of identifiable T or deliberate c interest in running for Governor, just a couple candidates willing to claim special conservative or T-Party affiliations. LOTS of independents, though, and alternate parties, so how the detractors break out will be important this time around. Divide the true independents among the Independent candidates and watch the Latino and other non-white blocks go D and it could be a massacre for the R's in State House races to go with the disaster they are facing in the Senate. And the House might not go more R, either.

You ONLY get the picture of big R gains if you ONLY look where the R's tell you to look. Look at the races as a whole and it looks like D's get +5 or more in the Senate and net gains of Governors.

Which the Nyah! Nyah! troll Chorus will now yuse several column miles to deny.

I have to tell you this: Only 6% of the whites in the South owned slaves. And that doesn't count all the whites in North. Overall you are looking at less than 2% - closer to 1% being actual slaveholders.

The point is: your hate of white people is irrational

Not all whites owned slaves - not even close - the vast majority of the whites were NEVER involved in slavery.

And yet you carry this grudge - EVERYONE IS A RACIST --

Obama's family wasn't even in this country during the time of slaves - he is an immigrant or whatever you want to call his African ancestry.

this is my querry to all Global Warming Deniers. Simply,just "what if" you are wrong??
Say there is only a 1% chance that pollutants are causing the icecaps to melt, and 1000s of respected scientists say the odds are far greater. Then what?
What if you deniers are wrong in your declaration that there is 100% guarantee that Global Warming does not exist. Your answer, oops we messed up our planet. I strongly suggest that all deniers visit the Columbia Icefields and then come back and tell us that there is a 100% chance there is no such thing as Global Warming. To deniers if we accept your denial and agree that there is only a 1% chance of Global Warming, then we do nothing? How about nuclear proliferation, cyber attacks or intl wars against Russia or China. Should we logically conclude that since there is only a 1% or maybe a 10% chance of any of those occurences happening then by your logic we should shut down our military and abandon efforts to halt the spread of nuclear proliferation or cyber attacks as a total waste of resources(that is not what I urge), using that same denier logic? I seriously doubt they would want to do that.

Curious why Global Warming is the topic de jour rather than the implosion of Rs with independents and hispanic voters over the
Gov Brewer signing on Friday that Az cops and conservatives like David Brooks are speaking out against?

"As for being warmed of global cooling 20 years ago. I was alive 20 years ago and I remember of hearing of GW 20 years ago. Never GC. I was a relative baby then, but I came from a science oriented family and paid attention to science oriented stuff.
Could I have forgotten about all the global cooling warnings? Perhaps, but a far more logical explanation is that perhaps a fringe sci community made the claim. Honestly, there's more debate about whether penicillin works than whether global warming exists. Now or 20 years ago. Posted by: DDAWD"

Well, actually, in the fifties research into the last ice age suggested that, as ocean levels rose, eventually warm waters flowing over the sill that rims the Arctic Ocean along the Atlantic would flow over into the Arctic, thus melting the polar ice cap and producing open waters North of Eurasia and America. This would [permit Arctic Air Masses to become much more humid, and normal circulation would produce far more precipitation over the Tundra and the Mountains to the South. THIS would eventually produce glaciers, and as the snow fields grew, and the glaciers advanced, the albedo of the Northern Hemisphere would increase, more sunlight would be reflected back into space, and the Northern hemisphere would cool. Voila, Ice ages.

But there was little, if any, concern for the increasing levels of greenhouse gasses in the fifties, so no one thought to factor global warming into that equation, and absent said global warming, the Earth would very slowly cool, (timed in kilo eons) and eventually freeze. Not, of course, before the decay of heavy elements in the core dropped to the point that volcanoes and continental drift stopped, but EVENTUALLY...)

So yes, way back when, there was a global cooling disaster mechanism, and people who wanted us to prepare for it. Of course since we are in the "Throw another log on the fire" loop, we have probably stalled THAT particular disaster by a geologic age or two, but the theories were out there.

One question that we will get to analyze is what happens when the Arctic Ocean is mostly ice free for months at a time. That we get to see soonest.

"As for being warmed of global cooling 20 years ago. I was alive 20 years ago and I remember of hearing of GW 20 years ago. Never GC. I was a relative baby then, but I came from a science oriented family and paid attention to science oriented stuff.
Could I have forgotten about all the global cooling warnings? Perhaps, but a far more logical explanation is that perhaps a fringe sci community made the claim. Honestly, there's more debate about whether penicillin works than whether global warming exists. Now or 20 years ago. Posted by: DDAWD"

Well, actually, in the fifties research into the last ice age suggested that, as ocean levels rose, eventually warm waters flowing over the sill that rims the Arctic Ocean along the Atlantic would flow over into the Arctic, thus melting the polar ice cap and producing open waters North of Eurasia and America. This would [permit Arctic Air Masses to become much more humid, and normal circulation would produce far more precipitation over the Tundra and the Mountains to the South. THIS would eventually produce glaciers, and as the snow fields grew, and the glaciers advanced, the albedo of the Northern Hemisphere would increase, more sunlight would be reflected back into space, and the Northern hemisphere would cool. Voila, Ice ages.

But there was little, if any, concern for the increasing levels of greenhouse gasses in the fifties, so no one thought to factor global warming into that equation, and absent said global warming, the Earth would very slowly cool, (timed in kilo eons) and eventually freeze. Not, of course, before the decay of heavy elements in the core dropped to the point that volcanoes and continental drift stopped, but EVENTUALLY...)

So yes, way back when, there was a global cooling disaster mechanism, and people who wanted us to prepare for it. Of course since we are in the "Throw another log on the fire" loop, we have probably stalled THAT particular disaster by a geologic age or two, but the theories were out there.

One question that we will get to analyze is what happens when the Arctic Ocean is mostly ice free for months at a time. That we get to see soonest.

All I am saying is this: I have read many studies over the years - and I don't believe the climatologists have proven their case.

The burden of proof is on them.

THEN I start hearing about the problems with the DATA. And the problems with the data really started at NASA - when a few years ago they had to re-state their calculations.

The MAJOR PROBLEM with the data was EXPOSED - they were recalculating the data - and making adjustments.

All of a sudden you had the same EXACT PEOPLE who were promoting a theory in charge of the DATA - that is a problem.

I dispute the WHOLE NECESSITY of adjusting ANY DATA.

THE RAW TEMPERATURE DATA SHOULD BE USED.

One can debate the methods they used to adjust the temperatures.

The whole CONCEPT of the proxy data is also problematic. How can one take a temperature point on land and use it to calculate a temperature hundreds of miles out to sea ??

The temperature out there could be anything - and yet they had computer formulas calculating that data - and THAT DATA was FED INTO the global averages.

It has been EXACTLY that data which has generated the most dispute - those temperature points which were ALSO used as PROXIES were fed into the averages twice - once for the point on land - AND then an adjusted number as a proxy far out to sea.

Anyone who has been at the beach or the shore KNOWS the temperatures there are erratic - and significantly different than the temperatures in land - AND YET those are the very temperatures being fed into the models twice.

Those also are where the charges of manipulation are greatest - New Zealand, China and Siberia - those temperatures are also used a proxies - and those are where the severe doubts are.

Anyway - you are a scientist - there really is no way you could support this kind of quality of data being used to support ANY theory - much less one that is causing us to spend Billions of dollars.

I did want to make one other point about the global warming controversy. I'm never opposed to facts, but I am sometimes skeptical of the conclusions people reach, and the predictions they make, based on the facts in evidence.

Noacoler tossed out a reference to smoking as though the fact smoking has been proven harmful to your health somehow supports all the alarms about global warming.

I could as easily reference one of my ancestors, a fellow named RAMAPITHECUS, about whom Richard Leakey wrote a book, PEOPLE OF THE LAKE, some years ago. And he wasn't the only one. They constructed an entire history. Told me how he walked, how he learned to walk, what his skin looked like; even found some of his tracks near "the lake." Imagine my disappointment when, some years later, additional evidence revealed that my ancestor was actually nothing but an orangutan.

When the global cooling alarmists were at full throttle, all I could think about was that Edgar Whisenant was telling me the world was going to end in 1988. Why would I have worried about an impending ice age?
Well, Edgar's world has since ended---at least he's no longer in it---but I'm still here.

Now I'm told to worry about global warming, but I have Harold Camping telling me it's all up in 2011---Hey, that's NEXT YEAR! If he's right, it's going to get hot a lot quicker than Al Gore thinks.

Shrink2,
I agree with Hawking on this. If there are advanced civilizations elsewhere that are capable of reaching earth, then how can we possibly know, or assume, that we would all just get along. Our history here on earth gives one pause.

We'd better hope God is the one receiving the signals, because anyone else capable of coming here is probably capable of having his way with us.

On the other hand, what if we---er, I mean they---are already here? Heh, heh, heh.

Since we know from The Fix every human thought has a binary political position, either one, or the other, I wonder if Hawking's attitude toward space creatures is a conservative, or liberal?

Since it is Sunday, we'll get God involved. Surely Hawking must deny the existence of God (not to mention Goddesses) if he concedes sentient life, sporting anthropomorphic psychological features, elsewhere, unless of course, God was more profligate in those six days before he rested than he let on. So Hawking must be a liberal.

On the other hand, his misanthropic (I won't call it bigoted), almost paranoid view of us (well intentioned but sinners nevertheless, we are all C Street Republicans, in need of God's grace/redemption etc.) versus them (people who are not like us are always, always worse than us) is at the core of the conservative world view. So confusing.

Since he wants to hide from The Threat, he must be a liberal, conservatives would launch a preemptive strike, or at least mine the Universe with nukes. Be afraid, says Hawking, but go shopping.

Scrivener50 wrote,
"Rogues and scoundrels appear to be running a multi-agency Homeland Security- administered fusion center cabal, in partnership with corporate and municipal officials across America."

Rogues and scoundrels. The current administration? 37th has been trying to warn people, but they just keep attacking him and demanding that he be banned.

I'm with you, though. Whatever these microwave weapons are, I've seen the effect they can have. Take poor Henry Waxman for example. Not only has his brain atrophied, but his head has mutated into a grotesque caricature of a sewer rat.

More from Noacoler, dropped in the middle of the night when no one was around to respond:

"I never heard anyone predicting that we were headed into an ice age, that is a complete crock."

I certainly believe you never heard it. You don't seem to hear much of anything than doesn't fit with your own peculiar world view. The prediction may have been a crock, but the fact that such predictions were made is certainly not a crock.
DDAWD is probably right about the time. The '70s sounds better than 20 years ago (time flies when you're having a good time).
I won't even argue that there was scientific consensus---there often isn't---
but NEWSWEEK and NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC are a couple of the publications who reported on this, if memory serves. Not your typical supermarket tabloids with stories about Elvis and Marilyn having been seen in Paraguay.

"we get this despicable fluff about solar flucrtuations"

Tell the people at NATURE it's despicable fluff. Have you seen SOLARMAX? I'm not the one pushing the "despicable fluff"; I just referenced it.

"There are precedents.
In 1954 there was a triumphal report that smoking cigarettes didn't cause lung cancer."

Well, now that is certainly relevant.

"I'm not a climatologist . . ."

No kidding?

". . . but I do know physics"

You'd never know it from this post.

"I know that I've never seen trees in bloom earlier than this year, and the same was true the year before that, and the year before that."

Is that what we sometimes call anecdotal evidence? Sort of like this cold winter some people have mentioned?

"I honestly think people who counsel putting the economy first deserve to be stoned to death. Like they do in Afghanistan for adultery. We're talking about mass extinction . . ."

Well, we've got the nukes. And a number of countries certainly aren't on board with you. Not sure what effect we'd have on the world environment.

"There is nothing we could do to arrest CO2 production that would not be beneficial all by itself."

Tell it to Al Gore, flying around in a private jet, driving SUVs, living in a McMansion and wasting more energy in a year than most people do in a lifetime.
Oh, but wait, he can afford "carbon credits." Now we're really talking crock.

Rogues and scoundrels appear to be running a multi-agency Homeland Security- administered fusion center cabal, in partnership with corporate and municipal officials across America.

These agencies, commands and corporations have constructed an extrajudicial, unconstitutional and morally bankrupt shadow government, run out of the nation's 70-some fusion centers, that pulls the power strings in this nation in a breathtakingly arrogant grassroots bypass of the civilian chain of command, the judicial system, and Congress.

Please stick a cork in the "I'm not a Republican" stuff. I'm not disputing the claim, but (1) we're all worn out from another poster who trolled this blog as repetiously and stupidly as 37th and this was one of his six endlessly repeated posts and (2) when you walk leica and talk leica and post leica it really doesn't make any interesting difference.

I never heard anyone predicting that we were headed into an ice age, that is a complete crock. But rare indeed is the conservative, GOP-affiliatged or otherwise, who's unwilling to edit his own memories when they conflict with his ideology's prescriptions. If the oil companies don't want conservatives to believe in absorption spectra, then then don't exist, and we get this despicable fluff about solar flucrtuations, as though nobody would f ucking notice variations in insiolation, which has been measuerd for over 400 years.
There are precedents.
In 1954 there was a triumphal report that smoking cigarettes didn't cause lung cancer after all. Just as now, millions were poised between making painful behavior changes or not, and when the "news" came out that "the science had been bogus," the nation lit up in relief, and millions died. Then it was the tobacco companies, now it's the oil companies. Same thing though, lies lies lies to keep up the profits.

I'm not a climatologist but I do know physics, I know what a f ucking absorption spectrum is, I know that CO2 has absorption lines smack in the middle of the color spectrum of the earth's surface, and I know that I've never seen trees in bloom earlier than this year, and the same was true the year before that, and the year before that.

I honestly think people who counsel putting the economy first deserve to be stoned to death. Like they do in Afghanistan for adultery. We're talking about mass extinction, including our own, and all you "unaffiated conservatives" care about is keeping the sdhareholders happy. Happiest.

There is nothing we could do to arrest CO2 production that would not be beneficial all by itself. In the USA we get half the economic bang for the energy buck of anyone else, we waste energy like mad; anything that reduces CO2 emission saves money, incerases independence from people who hate us, reduces waste. Our landfills are loaded with discarded single-use plastic that's loaded with untapped energy, changing that ALONE would reduce imports to zero.

I can't imagine that you don't know by now that I've said I am not party affiliated. What is the point in calling me a Republican? I consider myself conservative in most ways, but I don't carry water for either party. Does it make life easier if we all just choose up sides? Defending the Republican party, it's policies and proposals, all the politicians, and all of the mistakes it's made, is not an endeavor I'm willing to undertake.

Back to the subject of global warming. I answered your question to the best of my ability. I do not have great expertise in this area. I cannot produce charts, graphs, and documentation either to support global warming or to refute it. Sorry.

As for being warmed of global cooling 20 years ago. I was alive 20 years ago and I remember of hearing of GW 20 years ago. Never GC. I was a relative baby then, but I came from a science oriented family and paid attention to science oriented stuff.

Could I have forgotten about all the global cooling warnings? Perhaps, but a far more logical explanation is that perhaps a fringe sci community made the claim.

Honestly, there's more debate about whether penicillin works than whether global warming exists.

DDAWD wrote,
"No, I mean existence. You really think there aren't any conservatives who deny the existence of global warming?"

There may well be, but I'm not authorized to speak for them.

"Once we've exhausted the humor value in existence, we can move on to cause. That cool?"

Ah, there's the rub. There's disagreement about cause. This same scientific community was telling us twenty years ago that we were heading into a new ice age.
So you can understand the skepticism.
What will they be telling us twenty years from now?

The recent scandal(?) over doctoring evidence reminded me of the proverbial cop who frames a defendant he "knows to be guilty."

Evidently there is a bit of a lull in global warming right now, and scientists aren't sure just why. As bad as our pollution might be, is it the primary cause? Or is it less significant than, say, periodic changes in solar activity (flares, etc.) over which we have no control whatsoever?

Nothing wrong with controlling pollution and finding alternate sources of energy.
Who want's to be at the mercy of the Gulf states for their energy anyhow? The question is: how far do we go? Some developing countries have already made it clear they're not going to stifle economic growth in this cause; we have our prosperity, now they want theirs. Should we take a chance on wrecking our economy more than we already have? If we go it alone, will that be enough to stop the cycle?

Be sure of one thing. There are a lot of people lined up to get rich behind this, and all those politicans talking about carbon credits and cap-and-tax are bound to share in the spoils one way or the other---by hook or by crook. We're told, everyone will have to share in the pain, but you and I know that "everyone" never shares in the pain. The working class and those on the bottom rung of society will be the ones who share in the pain.

@Brigade - Blade has been used by a few gay-oriented publications. The Washington Blade was a GLBT publication that folded a year or two ago. Then there was a fun send-up of Zorro a few years ago (the gay blade, very funny). In my case, it's a reference to supporting a British football club. I could as easily be Fairlington Royal (KC Royals) or Fairlington Husker (NU).

I think it says everything about the individual(s) of 37th that they think calling me a homosexual is an insult. Pretty pathetic if you ask me, but that's what it is. My understanding of the "full rules governing commentaries and discussions" prohibit such behavior. As long as the Post think that's all jiggly with them, whom am I to say it's a problem?

DDAWD wrote,
"While you're at it, could you toss in some good conspiracy theories as to why liberals, I mean libs, purport the existence of global warming in the first place?"

Purport the existence? I'm not sure the debate is as much about existence as about cause and duration---and what steps should be taken. My own conspiracy theory is that all of the hot air circulating on Capitol Hill would convince anyone of global warming.

Would you all prefer to pay $7 a gallon - maybe $80 to fill your tank ????

There are entire rings of suburbs to which people need to travel to their jobs - if it is too expensive to commute, people have to move - further depressing property values - and leading to further foreclosures.

IN ADDITION - every business in the country will have its energy bills double - which will have to be passed along in the price of goods.

I really do NOT believe that any of the cap-and-trade supports KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

The economic havoc on this country will be severe.

AND if we can't get the health care bill repealed, those taxes will be hurting the economy too.

Sure, and the democrats want to legalize all the illegal aliens as well.

What kind of vision for the country is any of this ???

But the democrats will portray these issues and an opportunity to "stick-it" to the Republicans - simply LASHING OUT AT THE REPUBLICANS - without actually thinking out the policy implications.

The democrats have become VICIOUS PARTISANS - mindless - without thinking -

The democrats would prefer to win an election than act to see ECONOMIC GROWTH.

Shrink2,
Concerning the Climate/Energy debates going on, the cynic in me wonders how many old cronies in Chicago and elsewhere around the country are renting office space, setting up front men, and having signs painted to proclaim CLIMATE RESEARCH INSTITUTE and what not, so all the well connected will be able to belly up to the trough when funds are appropriated.

I will concede that there is a split in the Republican party - however it is something to be navigated and understood -

It is important to point out that there is also a split in the democratic party - the liberals have been pushing out the moderates and the white males for about 15 years now.

The rise of the radical left wing groups in the democratic party - the interest groups all with their own agendas - have wrecked havoc on the democratic positions - the unions, the gay groups, the women's groups, the minority groups.

They all seek to push out whoever will not advance their agenda.

You can see just this past month or so - Obama has no problem with sacrificing all the moderates in his party this November - the liberals have safe districts.

The unions in North Carolina have ceased their support for the moderate democratic Congressmen.

Is this out of control? Why are both parties in this position ???

Why are both extreme wings of both parties attacking the middle ??

One explanation is the federal government is just too big - there is no glory in expanding it any further - so the democrats do not have a strong platform - they have to reach for other issues - and the health care is just overreaching.

Behave rationally and the Base is turned off, or even turns on them, ad
as with Crist. Please the Base, alienate everyone else.

Look at daffy old McCain, so bitter at his loss, tacking hard right and abandoning old friends and allies to curry favor with despicable people. Be funny if he and Heywood split the vote and AZ went blue.

I keep trying to stick to political topics of the day - for instance the Arizona law -

From the new Arizona law:

Makes it a crime to conceal, harbor or shield an illegal immigrant if the person knows or recklessly disregards the immigrant's legal status. It does create a legal defense for someone providing emergency, public-safety or public-health services to illegal immigrants.

______________________

Isn't that EXACTLY what the democratic party is doing - SHIELDING ILLEGAL MIGRANTS ???

The quibbling about racial profiling is really aimed at PREVENTING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW - NOT making sure the 4th Amendment is applied properly.

This question is NOT about the 4th Amendment at all - in fact most people in Arizona would be a little taken aback if they knew that the 4th Amendment was at the center of what they have been discussing all week.

If you hang around, Brigade, you'll find there are those who are interested in a discussion about politics. I'm hoping that CC is working on a post regarding McCain's potential difficulties. NOt that I live in Arizona. Not that I vote for Republicans as a matter of course (though do on occasion as a matter of principle).

Meanwhile, one of the regulars thinks I'm a homosexual. Presumably, Moonbat will start calling me Pedtoo. It's not that hard to sort out behavior of the commenters and it has little to do with their politics.

On the subject of the Blades, Sheffield United 2, Swansea 0. Sadly, they're not going to make the playoffs this year.

I rememeber Branded well enough to have the theme music stuck in my head now. Chuck Connors.

There is another type of poster here, invariably conservative, whose only goal is disruption and malice, secondarilly self-fascinated. Invariably regards himself as smart and isn't. Don't need to name them.

"...there exists a mythical Citizen X who visits this blog several times a day to be dazzled by their brilliant political insight. 'X' starts out thinking one way but never leaves until he's seen the light. If they cannot influence him directly, they will cut and paste information from other sites; but one way or the other, they'll get him straightened out."
_____________
You got it.

Have you ever noticed that, no matter what the actual topic of the thread, within two or three posts it's always back to the same old subjects that were hashed out in the prior thread, and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one . . .?

I've discovered in my brief time here that the regulars can almost be sorted into groups based on their reasons for posting.

Some are here mainly to blow off steam. Sometimes intelligent, sometimes not so much, but all apparently passionate. That's why you'll never see me call for having anyone banned. Better to rant here anonymously than take to the streets and actually assault someone.

Some are here to have their own opinions and prejudices vindicated by the views of the like-minded. They aren't really interested in much back-and-forth---don't want their ideas examined or criticized.
For them, it's just an intellectual (or sometimes not so intellectual) circle jerk.
They can be downright nasty if someone questions them.

And then some seem to operate under the illusion that there exists a mythical Citizen X who visits this blog several times a day to be dazzled by their brilliant political insight. 'X' starts out thinking one way but never leaves until he's seen the light. If they cannot influence him directly, they will cut and paste information from other sites; but one way or the other, they'll get him straightened out.

Lastly, there are those who really enjoy a good old-fashioned, sometimes testy, political debate and manage to maintain their sense of humor. If Carville and Matlin(sp?) can live together . . .

I really do think the Republicans are intent to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This is the best political environment they are going to have for as long as the Bush years stay in memory. And they are frittering it away with their teabagger nonsense. Crist wins the Senate seat in a walk. Rubio will lose to Meek. He is simply too extremist for Florida. Same with Toomey. Even if Specter wins, he's been voting with the Democrats far more than he did as a Republican. JD Heyworth is going to have a hard time as well. Crist, McCain, and Specter are sure things. Rubio, Heyworth, and Toomey are longshots.

12, that idiot who refused to be deployed should have a ceremony like in the "Branded" TV series: march him out to the middle of the courtyard in front of all his comrades and break his sword in two and tear off every stripe and medal he has on his uniform...and then throw him in the brig. Then serve him only brig-ade.

noa, as long as it's noxious overt anti-BHO racism wafting from the trash, my guess is the trash will stay right where it is, see, e.g., Fix's teabaggers-are-"quasi-libertarians" and Chip (Barack the Magic N-gro CD) Saltsman-is-a-good-guy posts. :)

Since the section 32 hearing for that officer who won't report for duty is starting, 37 can use the discovery his attorney is planning for his defense. I'm sure the army is delighted to have constitutional law being practiced in their military courts. I can hardly wait myself.

I'm so sick of 37 and his dishonest tactics. Like, "if you don't disagree with me, then you agree. If you don't...then I'm right." For a guy who obviously has some intelligence, sometimes, I think some perverse middle schooler takes over and posts this chicken sh !t stuff. It's not debate, it's not discourse, it's not interesting, it's...what is the word, borrrrrrrrrrrring. If there were more conservatives on the blog who actually engaged in a discussion, we wouldn't even notice 37th. You notice that even Moonbat et al wants him banned.

In my opinion, this constant baiting by 37 that someone has to convince HIM about the birth certificate. Let him convince US about the truth, he can come up with the documents, pictures, witnesses, afterbirth ugh, or whatever he thinks persuasive. Then, we'll SEE if it convinces us. He's the one making the "Roswell" claim, let's see if he can prove it. Of course, he can't...because he only wins by innuendo and baiting Obama supporters.

Makes it a crime to conceal, harbor or shield an illegal immigrant if the person knows or recklessly disregards the immigrant's legal status. It does create a legal defense for someone providing emergency, public-safety or public-health services to illegal immigrants.

THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 - because all these charges are designed to DISCOURAGE people from exercising their civil rights, namely their freedom of speech.

If there was a group, intimidating people from voting, that would be the same type of civil rights violation.

At this point, the People have a right to petition the government for redress of grievances - the People have the right of Freedom of Speech.

I really would like to see these CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS prosecuted - and the offenders PUT IN JAIL FOR A LONG TIME.

This is NOT how our political system is supposed to work.

For some reason, these people believe that they have some slight - a slight in the past, related to the Iraq War, or Bush - or the Jim Crow era - which JUSTIFIES this behavior which is CLEARLY OUT-OF-BOUNDS in our political system.

There is an unsettled feeling in the nation - and it is the VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS - WHO ARE CONSTANTLY BEING DISCOURAGED FROM FREELY VOICING THEIR OPINIONS.

Broadwayjoe, you belong in JAIL - the comments you made today are VILE - and there is NO PLACE IN AMERICA FOR THE THINGS YOU SAY.

That document is NOT good enough - the reason is simple: it is the SAME document given to parents of children born overseas.

THE UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS ARE HELD IN SECRET."
_____________________

LOL. Hawaii has produced BHO's birth certificate, which you now have a PDF of. The state has repeatedly stated there is no long form certificate -- that is a racist myth. No one except bigots, baggers, and lunatics care to follow you on your silly snipe hunt.

If you want to "debate" whether BHO was born in Hawaii, the sun is bright, or water is wet (actually the late JakeD spent months debating that), go for it.

Open post to 37, mooned/zouk, teabaggers, the Klan, Aryan Nation, the Michigan militia, the White Citizens Council, Ms. Todd Phalin, the Arizona state legislature, and assorted bigoted sociopaths and fools:

Below is a link to a PDF of our 44th President's birth certificate as certified by the State of Hawaii. This is the official document. As the State has publicly advised ad nauseam, there is no "long form birth certificate" -- that is a racist canard that should have been debunked by the MSM long ago. Feel free to print out a copy of the PDF and put it on your cell, er, bedroom wall.

Clearly Obama has FAILED to keep his own people in line on the Post-Racial commitments -

Yet Obama is more than willing to see the false charges of racism fly.

The country gets it - the hypocrites are running wild in the democratic party.

Don't expect Obama to get a second hearing.

It's over - It really is over. Obama deserves to be IMPEACHED - perhaps he won't be REMOVED from office - however one more thing, and Obama can't expect the remaining democratic Senators to keep him in office.

The democratic Senators - when faced with the opportunity - may say, hey, we have one chance to get rid of Obama and go with Biden -

"The Republicans would be in better shape if they had more people as knowledgable as Ryan---you don't have to share his political philsophy to realize he's not a complete dummy. Is he a crook, too? Can't answer that. Time will tell."

We can agree on this. I watched him (Ryan), his heart was not in the talking points he was making. It was mock Jindal, as if he were reading a TP, which he wasn't.

On the other hand, when Ryan was attacking so called health reform, which I have always named some iteration of The Great Medical Industry Pork Barrel bill, his heart was in it and his central line of attack was true. Everyone knows the bill was stuffed with money for nothing and chits are not free.

"...will I now need to bring my birth certficate with me when we visit our condo in Sedona?"---leichtman1

Not enough info to help you. I have a good Hispanic friend, who doesn't look anymore Hispanic than George Bush---aside from his name. He's lived in the USA since he was two and has no accent whatsoever. He'd probably never be stopped.

On the other hand, my stepson, who has dark hair, brown eyes, and likes a good tan, has been asked by a highway patrolman if he was a Mexican. Go figure.

Back to your case. If you have dark skin, bleach it ala Michael Jackson---bleach your hair, too; if you have an accent, work on it. Wear dark glasses and keep your hat pulled low. If your name is really anything like Leichtman, that should be enough---just watch out for skinheads. If your real name is like Gonzales or Rodriguez, you'd better pick up some type of fake license and birth certificate that says it's "Leichtman."

"The crucifixion of Crist by Republican leaders says less about him than it does about the party. Both parties have been undergoing ideological cleansing, as Sens. Arlen Specter (forced out of the GOP in Pennsylvania) and Blanche Lincoln (facing a Democratic primary challenge in Arkansas) can attest.

But the Crist crisis is a whole new level of Jacobin excess; in the case of Lieberman, Democrats at least waited until he lost the primary to purge him.

Not so the Republicans, who are in a dogmatic race to the bottom as they drop Crist for his far-right challenger, Marco Rubio. Sen. John McCain, who defied the Viet Cong but cowers before the wing nuts, had this to say in 2007: "Gov. Crist has set an example for the rest of the party in a variety of ways, but certainly in bipartisanship." In 2008, McCain, who probably owed the Republican presidential nomination to Crist's endorsement in the Florida primary, hailed Crist's "principled, conservative leadership."

But now McCain has nothing supportive to say about his "dear friend" Charlie. "I support Republicans," he told the Hill's Molly Hooper when asked if he would back an independent Crist. "

Shrink wrote,
"This is a bad bill and Republicans are going to stand with the American people, who are standing on their tiptoes yelling, "Stop!"

"This week Paul Ryan said the same things he said about the health care bill. Too fast...bad process...rammed through...government takeover...Republican ideas ignored...needs to be scrapped so we can start over..."

"what is your take on the "conservative" members of the SCOTUS' signature creation: Citizens United?"

I haven't seen all those people on their tiptoes hollering "Stop!" Heath care, maybe. Financial reform, I don't think so. And down in their boots, where they keep their brains, the politicans know that.

Paul Ryan's a sharp guy. Just political bluster from him. The Republicans would be in better shape if they had more people as knowledgable as Ryan---you don't have to share his political philsophy to realize he's not a complete dummy. Is he a crook, too? Can't answer that. Time will tell.

Citizens United: I don't know any of them personally, but I believe in the laws of physics. One of the most basic is that if there's money anywhere around, someone's going to try to steal it.

"In case anyone's still laboring under the illusion that the "populist" teabaggers give a damn about reforming Wall Street (or direct even the tiniest bit of their famous anger at the wealthy) this should clear your head:

Tea Party Nation has enlisted members to bombard Corker (R-TN) with phone calls pleading with him "not to compromise" with the majority party. In an email obtained by TPMDC as a member of the group's mailing list, Tea Party Nation leaders give out Corker's six state office numbers and his Washington line.'

"immigration reform won t be debated until next year. Will Lincoln's derivative legislation help her re-election chances? Posted by: leichtman1"

Oh, there will be immigration reform debate a bit later this summer, because for the Dems it is the gift that keeps on giving. Just one more issue where we want to get the republicans up on TV speaking to their base. Every way the R's find to say hell no alienates every non-nativist party voter is some way or another, and the R's have no counters to mediate their extremist rhetoric. HCR, FinReg, ImigRef, Stimulus, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and its the economy stupid are the drip, drip, drip that will make the R's unacceptable to the un-base of the Republican party. The R's seem dedicated to the proposition that they should find every single issue that could alienate the rest of the country, to insure the purity of their voting bloc.

Will Lincoln's latest help? Kent Hoit. Not being there to see the locality, this campaign is about on the HRC/BHO level in 2008. Over all the long campaign helped, rather than hurt the Dems, and it seems that the primary fight in Arkansas is of the same grade, hard but not alienating to the other half.

37th said to BroadwayJoe
"You are a racist of the highest order - you have made comments here multiple times stating clearly that you HATE white people."

Barack's mother was white and he was raised in a white family. Joe seems to like him. How can you hate just half a man? Besides, even though I don't really know Joe and he does manifest the usual liberal anger from time to time, he seems to have a sense of humor. You just can't let all this stuff get inside your head or it'll drive you nuts.

Example: Robert Byrd is an old fossil of a Klansman who needs smelling salts before he can tell you what year it is. Yet every time there's an important vote in the Senate, they wheel him in on a gurney so he can cast a vote. He probably doesn't even know what he's doing. And the people KEEP VOTING HIM INTO OFFICE! I remember old Strom Thurmond chairing a Senate hearing when he was about 120 years old, leaning forward, what of his hair remained dyed the color of a beet, "I can't hear you! Talk into the machine!"
Grotesque.

Oh Republicans are posturing all right.
Positively gymnastic. Maybe they should get into Bikram.

John Boehner just said,

"The president says that he wants to clean up Wall Street, but when you look at this bill, what he actually does is protect them from ever having a financial problem [huh? what th'!?]...This is a bad bill and Republicans are going to stand with the American people, who are standing on their tiptoes yelling, "Stop!"

This week Paul Ryan said the same things he said about the health care bill. Too fast...bad process...rammed through...government takeover...Republican ideas ignored...needs to be scrapped so we can start over...

No matter. The funny part is some benighted Republicans will be chosen to vote for this bill. I still want to know how many and who they are. I think that is a much better (funnier for sure) Friday Line question than some subset of November's elections.

Brigade, since we all seem to agree crony capitalism is the bane of American politics and that both parties are up to their ears in corrupt pay-to-play sell outs to this or that industry, public employee union and monied interests in general (not to mention Cheney's Haliburton war), what is your take on the "conservative" members of the SCOTUS' signature creation: Citizens United?

The anti-black, anti-latino, anti-islam rage is really coming to a hate crescendo of looniess:

"The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer hasn't been shy about bashing Muslims in the military. So maybe it's no surprise that he has something to say about Rev. Franklin Graham being uninvited to the National Day of Prayer at the Pentagon after concerns were raised about Graham's earlier comments that Islam is an "evil" religion.

But Fischer really lost it this time.

In a blog post on the AFA's website, Fischer, who is the group's Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy, listed the reasons he agreed with Graham's statement about Islam, saying the military had been 'bullied,' and calling its leaders 'spineless,' before concluding:

Bottom line: you want to know who's now running the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy and the Marines and calling the shots where it counts? Fundamentalist Muslims and homosexual activists."

'I just went to my doctor's office for a sinus/ear infection. I had never seen this particular physician before and certainly didn't bring up politics with him, but as I was about to pay my bill, he volunteered, "We take cash, check, credit or debit card. No chickens." I'm in Indiana, mind you. I think Sue Lowden is in real trouble if even random doctors in Indiana are mocking her to total strangers.'

" The Republican Governors Association is embracing the mantle of a 17th century radical who tried but failed to pull off a mass casualty terrorist attack to kill the King of England and all of Parliament. Only now Obama plays the role of James I.
Guy Fawkes is their new hero?"

This is the moral bankruptcy of Haley Barbour at work. Who would've thought that the Republican public stratgy this year would be trying to incite people to kill the president and Congress?

Drindl,
I guess you and your alter ego have forgotten the nutjobs who took shots at Reagan and Ford. Republicans were they?

Lee Oswald, who spent as much time in Cuba and Russia during the cold war as he did here, was a Republican? Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray---Republicans no doubt. The guys who whacked Malcom X were no doubt black lackies from the right.

Of course George Wallace got shot, too, but I guess that's okay because he was a racist. I suppose Arthur Bremer was a liberal. Lots of violence back then.

We can't be too careful now. You guys should hook up with Ross Perot. The Viet Cong may be coming for BHO next.

Oh, and you needn't respond. Life is so much simpler for you when you just exchange posts with people who suffer from the same maladies.

"According to KOLD Channel 5 News in Arizona, local militiaman Bill Davis is recruiting “combat veterans, with kill records, to camp out and patrol” along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“If it comes to when shots are fired in the general direction of these guys, they have my authorization to return fire, if they’re in defense of their life or their buddy next to them, return fire, stop it as fast as it starts, and they’re capable of it,” Davis told reporters. Despite a warning from Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada that the militia’s plan is “very dangerous” and “very risky,” Davis is pressing forward,"

BTW, the Arizona immigration bill story was covered by two Fix coworkers at the Post. My prediction yesterday was that three Fix coworkers would write about by tomorrow before any peep from Fix was heard on the subject. We'll see...any bets?

The bill has been denounced by the entire legitimate journalist community outside Drudge/Fix World as an expression of tea bagger legislative hate directed at our Hispanic community: criminalizing living while brown. Sad. Triste.

"I acknowledged the leadership of Barak Obama, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Blanche Lincoln and other brave Democrats by voting for a strong package of more government rules and regulations, designed so that banking disasters on Wall Street will never require taxpayer bailouts and kite the national debt, ever again.

"I believe it is all over but the shouting. But the political poses are left to be struck and as you say, these negotiations/battles will take time."

"Some say it is in the Democrats' interest to draw this out with cloture votes etc., to count chickens in public (you want transparency? you want it all on C-span? Ok!), to place Republican opposition on the record, to place Republican love for Wall Street's free speech, on the record."

I hate to burst the bubble. NO ONE has any doubt that a reform bill is going to pass. Sure, there will be Republican posturing. They may even filibuster the first cloture vote and go back to negotiations so they can say they held the Dems feet to the fire. But it's going to pass, and it's going to pass with Republican support. How many Republicans? It all depends on their respective assessments of how it will help or hurt them in their re-election campaigns.

What is really disturbing is the number of liberals who really seem to believe this is a Democrat vs. Republican issue. I see 37th is on board for reform. Do you honestly believe that if Republicans were in charge at this time, they wouldn't be demanding "reform" and Democrats wouldn't be fussing over the type of reform they were offering?

Earth to the liberals: they are not trying to regulate long-time market practices. These exotic endeavors---banks gambling the assets of depositers instead of banking; development of derivatives that few people understand, offering mortgages to people who can't afford them, not checking their ability to repay, and then packaging the mortgages to unload on other poor sap investors---are fairly NEW, like since late in the Clinton administration.

Banks were PRESSURED by congress to make bad loans and then given the opportunity, through these exotic instruments, to PROFIT by it. Frank, Dodd, and Clinton are as guilty as anyone else. They screamed like Banshees a few years ago when Republicans wanted to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Remember the "wonderful job" Frank Raines was doing?

* The Arizona cops are hot on the trail of the man who allegedly threatened to kill Raul Grijalva’s staff over immigration, Tucson police spokesman Fabian Pacheco tells me. They have the number of the cell he used to make the threats and are looking to make an arrest.

Intriguing detail: The man allegedly told Grijalva’s staff that he was going to exercise his “constitutional right” to go kill Mexicans at the border, Pacheco says."

I really hadn't known that Arizona was just a ferociously racist state.

"Anyway, since well before his election,
I marvel every day Obama survives. He will never tour Dallas in an open vehicle, that is for sure."

I think so much of the Kennedy era now. I was young, but it's vivid. The race rage, the building violence, the outrageous rhetoric and incitement by rightwing politicians -- and finally, tragedy. Or a number of them. Four little girls in a church, a rising black leader, a young and idealistic president.

I kind of wonder how informative that "Obama got $x from industry Y" thing is. You can say that my donations to Obama represented a donation from the health care industry, but my interests are quite different from nurses or pharmaceutical companies. Similarly, at GS, the interests of a CEO are quite different from the interests of a low level trader. Not that $900k isn't informative, but I think that things like average donation size would be even more informative.

Meanwhile, on this cold, wet and windy Spring day where I live, my heart is warmed by the heat coming from Florida, no not the Miami Heat, not Anita Bryant's take on The Sunshine State, it is their tire fire of course, the Florida Republicans' nasty, smelly, but very warm conflagration. I think I'll have a cup of Orange Spice tea.

Leichtman, the split you describe cuts to the core of the Republican entity. Somehow, cycle after cycle, they get millions of Americans to vote against their own political and economic interests for the benefit of the few.

This latest example, lockstep support by the few, the monied Republicans, for Citizens United, a decision made by and for monied Republicans (non-partisan Supreme Court appointments/decisions are only a fading memory), is reviled by the left, the liberals, the libertarians, the TEA people and anyone else who (1) makes less than seven figures and (2) is paying attention.

Citizens United would have crony capitalism be part of the vision of the Founding Fathers. Yet nowhere, not in the Federalist Papers, pamphlets published prior to the DoI, nowhere do we see the speech of citizens, their right of assembly and etc., equated to the interests of corporate money. As far as I know, it is the worst example of judicial activism e-v-e-r and Republicans did it.

From refined partisan interest, the Republicans on the Supreme Court wrote corporate political money into our American Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Yet there is no doubt, millions of downwardly mobile members of America's dwindling Middle Class will vote Republican, somehow dreaming, believing, who knows, that their vote will help steer money back into their own wallets. Voting for the very people who looted the wealth they created, what a paradox.

Mark Kirk received $51,000 from GS employees. Obama's money came in 2008 over 2 years ago before Lehman and Bear Sterns even collapsed.
Open secrets list the PAC contributions to McCain in 2008. The top of the list includes
$230,000 from Merrill $373,000;Citi $322,000
etec etc etc GS;http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00006424&cycle2=2008

so please stop with your nonsense that its all about Obama. There is not going to be a
constitutional amendment and if anythinhg the recent SCT decision driven by the conservatives on the court is going to make it much worse when they overturned the 100 year
old ban on corp contributions in Citizens United v FEC decided just this past jan.

Can you spell hypocrisy. Conservatives here cheered on Alito when Obama criticized the SCt
during his SOTU for expanding corp contributions, icluding you. My head is spinning with all of the faux outrage and hypocrisy from the conservatives regarding this issue. Conservatives love PAC bank contributions, they cheer the Citizens United decision, then they say on know we can't allow these kinds of contributions b/c the TeaParty hates them.
So which is it, does the GOP now decide they disagree with the Citizens United decision, and will they change their mind again next week? Apparently they were for it before they were against it.

Is this thing on? I only hear crickets chirping, something about how bad partisanship is (losers of partisan battles always say that). Where are the Republican noise machines on this...I'd like Republicans to tell us which Republicans are going to vote for financial reform, the names of the Republicans who will have to say,

"I acknowledged the leadership of Barak Obama, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Blanche Lincoln and other brave Democrats by voting for a strong package of more government rules and regulations, designed so that banking disasters on Wall Street will never require taxpayer bailouts and kite the national debt, ever again.

By voting in favor of another layer of government rules and regulations, I acknowledge we Republicans did everything we could think of to kill this bill, but we failed.

So for political reasons, some of us had to get on board, so that we could be against it before we were for it and, in this way, pose as if we somehow helped the effort. As always, I'd like to thank Republican voters for your misunderstanding and lack of attention to this matter."

Yes, in making this bold move she both outflanked the union shill and grabbed momentum from him.

Mark, I believe it is all over but the shouting. But the political poses are left to be struck and as you say, these negotiations/battles will take time.

Some say it is in the Democrats' interest to draw this out with cloture votes etc., to count chickens in public (you want transparency? you want it all on C-span? Ok!), to place Republican opposition on the record, to place Republican love for Wall Street's free speech, on the record.

Obama got $992,000.00 from people connected to Goldman Sachs - he was also the candidate to take the most money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - these contributions would have to be banned - they are not corporate contributions.

umm

There would have to be a Constitutional Amendment - it would apply to both parties - and apply to anyone connected to the bands and the financial industry - and their lobbyists.

Strict language could be drawn up.

The financial industry has too much influence on the political system - AND they have proven that they abused that power.

immigration reform won t be debated until next year. McCain's leadership on the issue is vital and he won t get near it until after ghe squeaks by Hayworth and heys re elected. The issue is more explosive and divisive then HC and I doubt either party especially Ds will want to deal with it after 14 months with the HC debate and R certain demagoguery.
Great idea to band banks from contributing to either party but the reality is that corps have been banned from making direct contributions to federal candidates since 1907. Individuals with banks can contribute up to $2400 and that is it. Seems like Scalia, Thomas and Roberts just reversed the 100 year old ban on corp contributions which Obama pointed out in the SOTU so if you now have complaints about banks and their influence on politicians complain to the conservative block on the SCt. And weren't conservatives the one's whining free speech when it came to McCain/Feingold and urging unlimited campaign contributions. Are they suddenly finding religion on campign spending?
Will Lincoln's derivative legislation help her
re-election chances?

The fact that they launched into a partisan skirmish this week shows that they are more interested in political advantage than actually getting the legislation right.

That attitude is vile.

What is the best possible regulatory environment ? I don't want to hear partisan bickering. I don't want to see either side even TRY to get a partisan advantage on this issue.

I want what is best for the American people.

Yes, the ONLY WAY to start is to ban all contributions from Wall Street interests - which may require a Constitutional Amendment but so be it - if what they did was so grave - it deserves a PERMANENT BARMENT FROM CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANYONE.

Only after that is passed can the a proper regulatory regime be developed.

It is pretty simple.

Anyone who is more interested in their party gaining an advantage on this issue - more than actually getting the legislation right - is simply a traitor to the American economy.

There is a proper place for partisan politics in this country - and this is not one of them.

shrink, the Dodd-Lincoln merged bill is stronger than the Frank bill over all. The conference bill may take a month to hammer out. I hope it is stronger, in the end, than either of the separate bills. What gets to the President's desk in June is still very much in the air. Do not begin to count your chickens [until you barter with the nurse practitioner].

Do you think the Senate will begin debating immigration reform next month? I believe that will be the Majority Leader's hole card against the chicken lady.

Yeah shrink financial regulation is major. And it's another major defeat for Republicans, so no wonder Cillizza shies away from trying to weave it into the "national environment favoring Republicans" narrative. Time for another Dan Coats puff piece or something, or will it be the exciting prospect of Drowsy Tim "positioning" himself. Mr. Presence. Or that canary-brain from Wasilla.

But honestly, this one worries me. The stuff Obama is setting out to regulate is MAJOR wealth for the people who need it least, and lest we forget, it was when JFK had designs on tax breaks for monied interests that his murder war arranged. I truly fear for one of Jake's woo-hoo events.

But yeah, Republicans must be seeing their very lives flashing before their eyes. Regulate the financial castes? This is a nightmare for them.

No they don't. Center stage is what is on right now. This is another Cillizza attempt to distract attention from Republican failure. Governors' races take center stage? What an idiot.

This is what is on Center Stage. Obama's victory on financial reform is all over but the shouting. Lincoln tacks left on derivatives. This is the end game, Sunday talk shows, procedural vote or not on Monday, this is about poses now.

Huge. Another bill the Republicans tried to kill will pass. The only question is as it was, which Republicans will be forced to vote for it? I'm smiling. To. The. Line!

lets see what polling of hispanic voters in the SW shows in the next few weeks. My guess
is that GOP numbers will plummet by May with independent and hispanic voters who hear about this legislation. Just try winning elections in the SW with 20% or less of the Hispanic vote.
Wonder what Libertarian Ron and Rand Paul think about the Az legislation and if we will hear from them about it. Seems like the antithesis of what being a libertarian is all about.

Like I said, you are assuming that hispanics feel one way about the bill because of their ethnic heritage - you would probably be upset to find out that many hispanics support efforts to curtail illegal immigration.

So, leichtman1 NOW you know how the Tea Party feels.

The Tea Party goes out to exercise their Freedom of Speech - and they get called a bunch of racists by the democratic attack machine.

If the answer isn't "to work" then I'm not interested in taking up the topic with you. Because that's the reason. And where do most of them work? In low-paying jobs, mostly agriculture. People won't come here if it's just to starve, so the real solution to illegal immigration is to cut off the incentive to illegally immigrate, and in doing so deprive agribusiness of ...

THE ENVELOPE, PLEASE!

... cheap labor. And since most of the employers of underpaid labor are Republicans, is there really any question why that route is never seriously pursued?

So much more fun to sic the cops on minorities. Gotta love those Republicans."
---Noacoler

I think I've told you before that I'm not a Republican. My political philosophy, twisted as it may be, is generally conservative---but not in all things. I am under no illusion that there is any less corruption or hypocrisy or false sanctimony in one party than in the other.
For every Duke Cunningham there's a William Jefferson.

Some of them are good guys. I've always liked and respected Charlie Rangel, even though he is way to my left politically. I really hated to see him get mixed up in shady dealings. Plus he's a really snappy dresser. The temptation is so great when you are surrounded by purveyors of wealth day in a day out and you're trying to make it in D.C. on a congressman's salary.

But on the immigration issue. I hold no grudge against Hispanic immigrants. They want to work hard and make a better life for their families. But there are only so many hands in a deck of cards. If we could let in a few million hardworking Hispanics and ship out a few million shiftless deadbeats that are already here, I'd gladly take the deal.

touche:
"may come as a shock to you 37th but nobody here gives a flying f*** what you find offensive. You're a moron"

I posed a very serious political question and for that I am called a racist. If GOP apologist
like 37th think that this legislation will
play well politically(and that is why we are here) with libertarians, independents or hispanics, they truly don' t know quack about politics. It works great with their base, who are not going to vote D in Nov anyway, but as for voters who consider themselves to be libertarians or independents and young voters, it will simply reinforce the pereception they generally have of the GOP as being the party of intollerance(whether that is true or not). Anyone think that is a brilliant strategy for Ca, Nevada and Texas voters? I truly doubt it.
It will be toxic for the GOP in Nov. Remember how similar intolerance brought Pete Wilson's
career to an end?

If the answer isn't "to work" then I'm not interested in taking up the topic with you. Because that's the reason. And where do most of them work? In low-paying jobs, mostly agriculture. People won't come here if it's just to starve, so the real solution to illegal immigration is to cut off the incentive to illegally immigrate, and in doing so deprive agribusiness of ...

THE ENVELOPE, PLEASE!

... cheap labor. And since most of the employers of underpaid labor are Republicans, is there really any question why that route is never seriously pursued?

So much more fun to sic the cops on minorities. Gotta love those Republicans.

l1: this is a defining moment for BHO. This is one time he MUST go on the attack.
Call out these bigoted sociopaths as sociopaths for enacting this junk. And their sympathizers, those who think them libertarians, as fools or fellow travelers in hate.

DDAWD,
I'm having issues with the server, so forgive me if two similar posts come up. The bill contains the words, "if there is reason to suspect." I don't think any of us want Nazi storm troopers harassing innocent people.
The immigration problem does need addressing. I don't think Arizona's non-Hispanic population is comprised of sheet-wearing bigots. I've visited Phoenix (and suburbs), Tucson, Flagstaff and Sedona on multiple occasions, both business and pleasure, and I've yet to see a burning cross or a Confederate flag.

"I guess the voters in Arizona must have really had the wool over their eyes when they elected these scoundrels that want to enforce immigration law---since the Feds don't seem too interested. Rotten Tea Party jerks no doubt."

Maybe they should look up the difference between "enforce" and "legislate"

I would truly like one of the conservative
posters here to tell us how they think the
Az Legislation will play in their GOP outreach to hispanic voters this Nov; or have they just decided to write off the largest growing population in the country. I will stick with my thesis,until someone proves me wrong, that when the political history books are written about the early 21st century, that the GOP will rue this day and it will be thought the same as when LBJ proclaimed that the D may have written off the south for a generation by his actions.

April 23, 2010; Az will have created the GOP
Waterloo.
I would be shocked if this legislation does not become a major election issue in Az, Ca, Texas and Nevada campaigns this fall. The simple question to GOP candidates should be,
Governor/Senator would you sign that bill if
your state legislature or the US Senate brought it to a vote? its a lose/lose for GOP candidates. And it likely will not be well thought of by not only hispanic voters but by
libertarians and independents throughout the nation.

Wouldn't surprise me if Fix thinks libertarians are respectable instead being the turbo-charged under the table underachievers and sociopaths that they are.

People who would rather step over corpses on the sidewalk than have a few more dollars taken out of their paychecks. Conceited terds who like to think they're all self-reliant an' stuff, having never know privation in their lives.

There's a good reason libertarianism has never broken the 3% barrier and never will, and it isn't because they're unfairly represented in the media.

brig-ade, likely story. Typically there is one black stage hand at these bagger rallies and, at the end of the event, he gets totally jacked up and has the snot beaten out of him...allegedly, probably, almost certainly. Without health insurance no less.

Noacoler wrote,
"Well Brigade after some small early promise you've turned out, and in short order, to be just as snotty, snarky, and completely predictable as all the "other" right wing posters here.

Your teabaggers are an armed rabble. Dignifying them as having legitimate grievances isn't fooling anyone.

I think I'll just ignore your posts henceforth. Life is too short."

Suit yourself. Snottiness and snarkiness are always easier to recognize when someone else is doing it. Less so, obviously, in your own posts. Some remarks are just too ludicrous to deserve serious response.

Besides, it will be much easier for you if you just engage with people who look at things just like you do. When I dropped in here tonight, I thought I'd landed in the middle of a big ole liberal circle jerk until 37th arrived.
'Rotten teabaggers!'; 'Co-Sign!'; 'Filthy racists!'; 'Co-Sign!' Very elevating exchanges. All of the really deep thinkers are obviously on your side.

This is a huge wedge issue for the Dems. They can now callout opponents by asking whether they are for this racial profiling bill or not. Yes or no. It will put SW US in Dem hands for the rest of our lifetime.

Noacoler, refresh my memory. What happened in Los Angeles when some of the locals didn't like the verdict rendered by the jury regarding the cops in the Rodney King case? Was there any violence? Were those Republicans in the street?

Part of what I'm hearing here is that an astute politician would just let illegals overrun the country, so he could lock up the Hispanic vote. But things are always messier than that. Democrats have had the black vote locked up for years, and all blacks get are empty promises and platitudes and the pleasure of seeing a caucus, most of whose members are bootlicking poverty pimps, treated with respect as long as they stay in line.

I guess you didn't hear about the CNN reporter who asked the black chap at the Tea Party rally if he didn't feel a little out of place with those people, which is liberal speak for, "What are you doing here boy? Don't you know your place?"
He said, "These are MY people; we're all Americans." Good for him. If more blacks became Republicans, the two parties might actually fight for their votes. It's called leverage. Nobody works for money that's already in the bank. Same with voters.

On the illegal alien bill - there is a whole group of people in this country who don't like the law, so they are resisting its enforcement.

HHHMMMM, isn't that what the democrats are upset with the Tea Party Movement about ???

Obama and the democrats are just upset that the American People did not hail them as heros when they passed health care - instead they were greeted with the PROTESTS OF AMERICANS WHO DO NOT WANT OBAMA'S HIGH TAXES.

Then today it came out that the health care bill is EVEN more expensive? What is that all about?

Were we LIED TO BY OBAMA AND HIS PEOPLE AGAIN - it is only 5 weeks since the the health care bill passed - AND NOW THEY ARE CHANGING THE COST NUMBERS - THEY HAD TO KNOW BEFORE - OBAMA JUST GOT CAUGHT IN ANOTHER BUNCH OF LIES.

BroadwayJoe wrote,
"I hope BHO doesn't do a rope-a-dope on this as he did with the policeman who jacked up his professor friend Skip for no reason, well, the reason was living in a nice house while Black. BHO can show real leadership on this. Forget the triangulation / bipartisanship that your staff is peddling. Just do it. Call out these gutless, beer bellied, teabagging bigots."

You're missing something Joe. It's gray, lobed and wrinkled (no, not your rear end) and usually attached to the upper end of the spinal cord. Look under the bed, or in your septic tank.
But don't worry too much. You're obviously able to function, although at a very low capacity, with just the stem in place of the complete unit.

curious if GOPers here understand that whether they agree with the Az racial profiling bill
or not, that it will be toxic with hispanic
voters this Nov. Perry was counting on getting
30-40% of the vote in the valley. Think again this bill will be spreading like a wild fire in the coming weeks in south Texas and Nevada.

you were right on the mark when you posted:

"Oh well Latino identification with the GOP was in single digits already. After today it's probably on the level of statistical noise.

The Feds maintain that Blago was out asking for something in exchange for the appointment - if Obama was in there with his people tried to push Valerie Jarrett, Obama has a problem IF his side was entertaining any offer in exchange for the appointment of Valerie Jarrett.

That is important.

If Obama himself was on the phone with the SEIU people - and if they were arranging some sort of job offer for Blago - then there is a problem.

Get it ???

It sure appears that Blago was conducting a bidding war for the appointment - if that is the case - ALL THE BIDS WOULD THEN BE ILLEGAL CONDUCT.

Extremely strange that the Feds moved so quickly.

Is it possible that they moved quickly to PREVENT Blago from going with a potential SEIU deal ?

Take a look at what happened - Blago is holding a bidding war - Obama and his people are trying to get Valerie Jarrett appointed - Isn't it logical that some kind of offer was made in the mix ???

It sure seems like Obama's telephone call to the SEIU may have been about getting a job offer over to Blago.

Ceflynline:
"This gets to the Supreme Court rather quickly, where precedent, which says cops can't arbitrarily stop people and demand they identify themselves, ought to prevail. (but the great respecters of precedent have a 5-4 majority so that isn't worth the use of the word)

Brewer stroked her base, and raised the hackles of every other voter in Arizona."

My, my, my, my. Aren't we all up in arms? We don't like laws passed by democratically elected legislators and signed by duly elected executives---and we're afraid we might not like a Supreme Court decision. I've even heard (gasp) that some people have taken to the streets to protest. And Joe wants to boycott the state.

Strange that you all have a completely different take when you see the tea-baggers take to the street to protest Obama's policies. I recall some of the nasty names they've been called. But, tut, tut, Republicans, watch what you say about these Arizona protestors. If you call them anything like what Democrats have called the tea-baggers, you know what people will say about you.

I hope BHO doesn't do a rope-a-dope on this as he did with the policeman who jacked up his professor friend Skip for no reason, well, the reason was living in a nice house while Black. BHO can show real leadership on this. Forget the triangulation / bipartisanship that your staff is peddling. Just do it. Call out these gutless, beer bellied, teabagging bigots.

"joe, the draconian nature of this law has kind of astounded me -- what comes next, highway checkpoints where you have to produce your 'papers' or you are detained? It's so open-ended it's creepy, in a fascistly-icky kind of way. Because there's no criteria -- it's left to whatever officer of the law to decide. Maybe you are wearing the wrong shoes, maybe you 'got a bad attitude'... I'm surprised that there isn't some kind of pushback from the libertarian or just plain anti-government right. Because this will affect them too. But maybe they just hate the furriners so much it overrides all that. Posted by: drindl"

Oh! a couple of the criteria will be driving a BEEMER while non-white, or suspicion of driving a low rider. Suspicion of speaking Mexican will usually do it.

This gets to the Supreme Court rather quickly, where precedent, which says cops can't arbitrarily stop people and demand they identify themselves, ought to prevail. (but the great respecters of precedent have a 5-4 majority so that isn't worth the use of the word)

Brewer stroked her base, and raised the hackles of every other voter in Arizona.

Such in-depth analysis. Such heated debate; really gets to the heart of the issue and looks at all sides.

I guess the voters in Arizona must have really had the wool over their eyes when they elected these scoundrels that want to enforce immigration law---since the Feds don't seem too interested. Rotten Tea Party jerks no doubt.

But wait, isn't this what some people are saying about the Obama administration--- that the change they're getting is exactly what they voted for? Co-sign? Co-sign? Co-sign?

By singling out people based on their appearance and challenging their legal status, the cops will be demanding that people prove their innocence of a crime they have not been accused of. This is fundamentally at odds with American law. Period.

@broadwayjoe: total co-sign, especially on Obama's missed opportunities and his naive notion that it's possible to work with Republicans. Nobody should talk about "bipartisanship" until a significant number of Republicans in the House and Senate start acting like adults.

The Arizona law is utterly disgraceful, approaching the interment camps and lacking even the thin justification for the camps (we were at war). The very idea that cops can pull over people for being dark skinned and demand proof of citizenship (!) is as ugly as it gets. Leave it to Republicans to find a way to sic the cops on minorities, this is the kind of sh*t they have wet-dreams about.

Oh well Latino identification with the GOP was in single digits already. After today it's probably on the level of statistical noise.

d: I have to believe this is the Arizona equivalent of the late JakeD's "I'm not begging" meltdown. LOL.

At some point the hate in these folks just overwhelms logic and reason. The haters eventually just decide to "go for it." This bill is practically Jim Crow type junk.

What it does is ensure the Nation's fastest growing demographic (with the exception of about 23 Castro-obsessed Cubans in South Florida) will NEVER vote GOP. But BHO has to step up and get on the soap box; he can't keep missing the weak fastball down the middle. He could keep talking about this through 2012. Challenge Marco Rubio on the issue, for example--call him out!

If BHO's political team can't knock this one out the park; his team is pathetic.

. . . It also warned that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15% of hospitals into the red and "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors."

Then Gallenod added,
"There's a reason most of HCR doesn't take effect until 2014 and 2019. It's to give Congress time to assess and act on various funding and regulatory mechanisms. Yes, the Congressional Budget office predicts savings over the next 20 years. But the report reference in USA Today may be just as valid. HCR will require a lot of care and feeding over the next 10 years to make it work, and the bill they passed this year did not, admittedly, address the cost of care issue."

My, my, but the story is changing now that the billed has passed. I see that we're also beginning to hear about the pesky fines that some of the people who voted for the bill swore would never be enforced.

Who would doubt that the IRS will just let you slide if they know you owe money to the government?

And Gallenrod, the Congressional Budget Office is where the Tooth Fairy works. Please, please, tell me you don't actually believe their numbers and that this bill is going to DECREASE health care costs.

It's already been signed into law. We can level with each other now. Maybe it's good that insurance companies have to take all comers, but it certainly isn't going to be cheap.

Sorry I'm late to the table on these. I scan the threads over lunch, but never post from work. Not what I get paid for.

1. Bunning "Tough Sh-t" comment to those needing an extension of unemployment benefits.

2. The recent tea bagger hate fest where they bum-rushed Members of Congress, screamed the n-word, spit on Cong. Cleaver and traumatized Cong. Frank.

3. The GOP "Chickens for Checkup" alternative to HCR where patients would pay for health care with chickens "like in the old days" (the days that exist only in Disney movies)

4. The tea baggers' celebration of "Tim Mc Veigh Day" with these sociopaths showing up at national parks fully locked and loaded--what kind of racist mental celebrates an act of domestic terrorism?
____________

But in each case where it could have discredited the opposition, the BHO Administration either whiffed completely or just flared a weak single.

Need to do better--this racist immigration bill is one more chance for BHO to completely change the game. The Arizona bill is obvious unconstitutional bigoted profiling; BHO needs to condemn it over and over, 24/7.

joe, the draconian nature of this law has kind of astounded me -- what comes next, highway checkpoints where you have to produce your 'papers' or you are detained?

It's so open-ended it's creepy, in a fascistly-icky kind of way. Because there's no criteria -- it's left to whatever officer of the law to decide. Maybe you are wearing the wrong shoes, maybe you 'got a bad attitude'... I'm surprised that there isn't some kind of pushback from the libertarian or just plain anti-government right. Because this will affect them too.

Gadzooks, what happened to everyone? Did you scare them all away, 37th? Or is there really something to Scrivener50's fears of microwaves and cell towers?

One thing:
Drindl posted,
"Well, here is what a Republican-appointed agency looks likes.
(CNN) -- As the country was sinking into its worst financial crisis in more than 70 years, Security and Exchange Commission employees and contractors cruised porn sites and viewed sexually explicit pictures using government computers, according to an agency report obtained by CNN."

Do we know that these were Republicans? I hadn't heard that. Lots of Democrats work for the government. I would have guessed that the majority of full-time government employees were Democrats.

I hope this isn't just another of those slanderous accusations about which Noacoler has complained. Or Charley may be coming after you when he's finished with Ross Perot.

Speaking of Governors, AZ Governor Jan Brewer elected to double-down on bigotry by signing a bill that will criminalize one's undocumented status. With one stroke of the pen, she has guaranteed minority status, if not extinction, for the GOP.

Excerpt from one article:

"If you're in Arizona and look even remotely like some policeman's idea of an illegal immigrant, a law signed today says you will have to produce papers showing you're in the USA legally whenever and where-ever an officer requests this -- and so will anyone else with you. Now, faith leaders are calling this new law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer this afternoon, a sin against God and man and at least one says believers should not comply."

37th, don't flatter yourself that your incoherent and pointless posts present some sort of challenge to liberal posters here. The reeaon practically everyone wants you banned has nothing to do with the right-wing cant of your posts, but with the cutesy spacing junk, the all-caps, and most of all the brain deadening repetition. You abuse this blog. You don't belong here. Go away.

Considering that, mirabile dictu, the entire NFL seem to be picking linemen and defensive backs, first round, and ignoring the glory guys like McCoy and Tebow, could there be some kind of rational behavior virus going around and affecting people who otherwise would gaily waste third world nations national budgets worth of money to draft a sore armed, gimpy kneed Heisman candidate that the press has been idolizing for four years when their offensive lines couldn't keep 80 year old grannies from the bargain tables in Macy's basement?

Is pragmatism and utility becoming something to be desired? Could it bleed over into politics and November be a revelation to the ranting right.

by the way mark John McClain has Gerhart or Dwyer as the Texan's pick in the second round and Lamarr Houston not Shipley in the third. After losing Matthews yesterday to San Diego I doubt they are going to pass up either Gerhart or Dwyer and pick Shipley unless he makes it to the third round which is doubtful. If they don t choose a quality RB in the second round there will be some really ticked off fans around here.

That signature a few minutes ago by Gov Brewer will come to bite the GOP in the backside and will be just as toxic to the GOP and a generation of hispanic voters as LBJ's
signature was to southern voters.

Posted by: leichtman1

Brown skinned man in AZ is walking down the street or driving his car. Gets stopped on suspicion of being an illegal. Produces drivers license to prove them wrong. Goes about his merry way.

mark: Houstoninans would be thrilled to get
Shipley, hope you are right.
37th, we are vigorously defending your right
to rant and deliver racially devisive comments by simply ignoring you. Now wasn't that fun.

That signature a few minutes ago by Gov Brewer will come to bite the GOP in the backside and will be just as toxic to the GOP and a generation of hispanic voters as LBJ's
signature was to southern voters.

Interesting that Ohio got muscled off the list, not that I think Kasich stands a real chance.

The circumstances that make kasich unelectable wear just as nicely on Portman. State is broke and R's are going out of their way to keep it that way. Portman sings off the same page and in the same key as kasich, and as their voices rise, shriller and shriller, Ohio's drift into the safe, sane, sedate, blue continues.

But watching kasich try to balance a budget would have been very entertaining, really.

By the way, what is the penalty for a state with a requirement for balanced biennial budgets when the Legislature and the Governor fail to do so? Could the Ahnold and several State Legislators be jailed for contempt of constitution?

Personally, I think Republicans have gotten way to giddy with the Scott Brown election. It was a great win for them, no doubt, but I think they've fooled themselves into thinking they can just walk into any political arena and win. This is definitely a good year for them, but I don't see how the hell they can possibly think that they can put Perry up against Obama and win. Although I guess they have to put SOMEONE up against Obama.

Personally, I think their best hope is Romney, but that would require the other primary candidates not handing Romney's ass to him for signing in a healthcare law identical to Obama's.

mark personally I think that talk of POTUS ambitions (which is insane after 8 years of the last POTUS from Texas) actually hurts
Perry. I am more interested in how Perry would respond in a debate about the Az profiling bill. It seems like a lose/lose concept for
him. I have started to ignore the outrageous
postings and encourage others to do the same.

StreetCorner, why wait for November? You should not be flakking Perry's prez ambitions without compensation!
Let Perry know what you can do for him and get paid for it. Don't give it away. You are made for each other. And he can afford your rates, too. Write the same stuff over and over and get paid for it. What could be better for you?

Change your moniker to 10thAndColorado and you'll get the job. Go for it!

interesting: I have spent my whole life in Texas and involved in Texas politics but you and jake KNOW texas politics.
I am disgusted with your blatant overt and constant racists rants here and I ask CC to intervene and bring it to an end.
As someone who grew up in the south I am quite accustomed to your blatant racism which personally CC needs to stop. Every single one of your posts starts out with the words race, black,racial, innercity, white men ad nausea and then you fein faux outrage when someone points that out. Certainly you will whine and claim the first amendment gives you the right to post every obnoxious thought you might have which is the exact same garbage we heard from Strom Thurmon and George Wallace in the 1960s.

jake has disappeared from this site and its way beyond time that CC kicks you off this site so that the rest of us can engage in
CIVIL political debate which you are incapable of.

I know, I know. This is a little hometown but you need to put Oregon on your list.

The Ds are going to nominate former governor John Kitzhaber (also known as Kitzslobber.)

The problem -- two problems actually -- are 1) Oregonians have shown in the past a reluctance to elect a governor to a second term, and 2) is Kitzslobber's looks. Kitz may be only 62 but he looks 75, even running around in his blue jeans. Face it gang, Kitz looks too old to be governor.

The Rs debated on TV the other night and business executive Alvin Alley wiped the floor with the other two leading Rs.

Former Trailblazer Chris Dudley looked canned and programmed. Someone obviously told Dudley to acknowledge the questions but gave him just one option. Almost every question he responded,"That's a good question. . ."

State Senator John Lim was comical with his pidgin English and overused response that "we need to get rid of 66 and 67," A reference to a pair of recently passed tax measures. Well, that's fine senator but how do you want to get rid of them.

Alley's responses, on the other hand, were on the money and to the point. His knowledge of issues facing the state was obviously comprehensive.

I've been wary of Alley because of his loss in the treasurer's race two years ago but after seeing his debate performance my opinion has changed.

Republicans would be wise to give the nod to Alley and Oregon voters would be wise to elect Alley in the fall.

When analyzing the races in both CA and WA, you have to remember that CA has a Marijuana legalization initiative on the ballot, and WA has both a Marijuana legalization initiative and a Income Tax on the Rich initiative.

Both states will see a turnout of otherwise non-energized Dems and Greens that will swamp the otherwise possible Republican candidates.

Going to be fun when the West Coast declares the West is Free from Nanny State Morality.

Chris, Vermont has moved their primary up to August 24th. While its not much extra time for the dems, it may be relevant. Gov Douglas was against the idea, saying it was politics, (as was keeping the primary where it was) but he allowed the bill to become law.

Governor Moonbeam and Rhode Island are really the only bright spots for democrats.

Obama has a serious problem on his hands - his decision to push through health care has double-offended the American People -

People have tuned Obama out - they hit the remote when he comes on the television - he is not even going to have a chance to make his case.

Not that he has much of a case - he campaigned on bipartisanship and post-racial actions.

But Obama INSISTED on a far-left health care bill - not a compromise bill which would attract SUBSTANTIAL Republican support. Picking off one or two Republicans doesn't come close to what Obama promises.

Then Obama sent his attack machine out to call people who did not agree with him RACIST.

This was a major major mistake - instead of being gracious, the attack machine and the op-ed have been in your-face for the past few weeks - even including this week's article by Eugene Robinson.j

Doesn't one get the impression these guys are not that smart ? This is not what the country wants.

The past year has PROVEN that Obama is not qualified to be President - his inexperience has showed clearly. And the country is hurting as a result.

Let's just hope that the country gets through the rest of his term with a minimum of damage.

"(CNN) -- As the country was sinking into its worst financial crisis in more than 70 years, Security and Exchange Commission employees and contractors cruised porn sites and viewed sexually explicit pictures using government computers, according to an agency report obtained by CNN.

"During the past five years, the SEC OIG (Office of Inspector General) substantiated that 33 SEC employees and or contractors violated Commission rules and policies, as well as the government-wide Standards of Ethical Conduct, by viewing pornographic, sexually explicit or sexually suggestive images using government computer resources and official time," said a summary of the investigation by the inspector general's office.

More than half of the workers made between $99,000 and $223,000. All the cases took place over the past five years."

Why is Texas not on your list CC?
The repercussions for the GOP nationally if Mayor White should win are enormous.
I am thrilled you acknowldge that Barbour is the likely 1950s face of the GOP in 2012.

As to the Texas race, imh what the Az governor does with the immigration bill may be a key to how Texas votes in Nov. So Governor Brewer
Please sign the bill and then lets see Gov
Perry squirm. As I posted yesterday Perry's position on the Az racial profiling bill is a lose/lose proposition for him. Secession, nullification, rebel flags, racial profiling, and trashing Thomas Jefferson is a great GOP message.

URGENT TO GOVERNORS, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS (aides, please forward ASAP):

All of those cell towers you see all over America are NOT all for phone calls.

Some of them are TORTURE TOWERS -- part of a nationwide microwave/laser radio frequency "directed energy weapon" system that is being used by operatives of the multi-agency Homeland Security-run "fusion center" network to silently TORTURE, IMPAIR AND PHYSICALLY AND NEUROLOGICALLY DEGRADE THE FUNCTIONING AND WELL-BEING OF SOME OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS.

And apparently, the genocidal use of this precision-targeted domestic weapon system to attack and harm U.S. citizens is being done WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF CONGRESS OR HIGH STATE OFFICIALS.

Wow, who would want to be a governor in this economy? Every state is in debt. Even if every governor could reduce "the size of government" to a bare bones minimum, there still wouldn't be enough money to go around. And no governor can raise taxes. In the end, everyone's mad at you.

Really, what can Whitman do that Schwarzenegger couldn't? Corzine couldn't "fix" New Jersey and now Christie's finding that he can't either. In fact, AP reports that Christie, a Republican, has a higher office payroll than Corzine.

Everyone talks a good game, but you know what they say about the reality of governing.

Doug Grow has another inside-baseball story on this weekend's DFL endorsement convention. Ryback and Kelliher are the favorites to come out as victors, but Grow notes that rep Paul Thissen might emerge as a 'consensus' candidate.

On the GOP side, the infighting got a little more direct this week, when Seifert reminded GOP delegates of two DUIs that Emmer had, in 1991 & 1981. Whether primary voters will view that as relevant or a cheapshot is unclear.